State sponsored crime

[C1ay]

C1- I am a little surprised by this direction.

Why? No where does the Geneva Convention mention "unlawful combatant". GCIII doesn't even mention combatant. Many of those at Guantanamo were captured at Al-Qaeda camps and it was assumed at the time that they needed to be interrogated to see if we could gain any knowledge of planned events similiar to 9/11. For many of them it has been 3 years now and you and I both know they have no knowledge of future events. We are at war with Al-Qaeda and I support holding their prisoners until that war is over or they die but, they should be treated as prisoners of war. Not that they will treat our prisoners likewise but it is no need to stoop to their level. We are a civilized society and we should act like one instead of trying to invent new loopholes to avoid it.

[Biochemist]

Why? No where does the Geneva Convention mention "unlawful combatant". GCIII doesn't even mention combatant.

Neither did I.

Many of those at Guantanamo were captured at Al-Qaeda camps and it was assumed at the time that they needed to be interrogated to see if we could gain any knowledge of planned events similiar to 9/11. For many of them it has been 3 years now and you and I both know they have no knowledge of future events. We are at war with Al-Qaeda and I support holding their prisoners until that war is over or they die but, they should be treated as prisoners of war.

I do acknowledge the complexity of withholding due process (that Boersun surfaced) and the complexity of the definition of their status. The detainees are treated humanely, and in fact they frequently acknowledge that this is the best experience (in terms of food, shelter, sanitation) in their lives. The issue with due process initally related to the ability for detainees to coordinate through counsel with other detainees or folks on the outside. I agree that ths issue has faded with time. I suspect this is the reason that the military has finally decided to begine the tribunal process with severl fo the detainees.

 

The conflict of interests with the ICRC (an orgainzation that frankly disgusts me) is a separate issue. I forgot who brought that one up.

[Boerseun]

Neither did I.I do acknowledge the complexity of withholding due process (that Boersun surfaced) and the complexity of the definition of their status.

Bio, I do appreciate that for once we're on the same page.

 

However, as all honeymoons do, it came to an abrupt end when I read the following:

 

The detainees are treated humanely, and in fact they frequently acknowledge that this is the best experience (in terms of food, shelter, sanitation) in their lives.

You are not, by any chance, trying to tell me that denying these detainees their freedom based on US suspiscions is all right provided they have food, shelter and sanitation? And based on what sources did they actually say this? All things being equal, this sounds like US propaganda...

[Biochemist]

However, as all honeymoons do, it came to an abrupt end when I read the following...

Gee. And it was so romantic while it lasted

You are not, by any chance, trying to tell me that denying these detainees their freedom based on US suspiscions is all right provided they have food, shelter and sanitation? ...

No. I think the trbunal process is reasonable, and that they have probably taken too long. I also think that the other complexity is describing the boundary of the "battlefield" as described in the Conventions, when the opponent is an asymetric non-country.

 

The US apprehended these folks with reasonable suspicion they were "combattants" in the battle on the "battlefield". The battlefield certianly has variable boundaries, when the acknowledged opponent (al Queda) exists in multiple countries, and also networks with multiple other unnamed associated groups that also network through multiple countries.

 

But US history is such that in times of war, rules change. We were attacked, and regarded the detainee situation as reasonable given the untenable circumstances we found ourselves in. I do not regard this as propaganda. It is a tough set of decisions in times of war with an opponent that does not play by any rules.

 

You are probably aware that some of the folks released form Guantanamo have subsequently been reapprehended on the battlefield. This only makes the military even more conservative in their assessments of risk.

[infamous]

Agreed. There is little point signing up to something that is so utterly worthless. However, the USA should put forward some more positive ideas, rather than just refuse.

 

QUOTE]It would be a smart move on the part of the USA to do exactly that. And I might also add that, let's not limit these new ideas to the USA, I'm sure that many other nations have ideas's about this growing problem. Let's hear some of these good ideas's from other nations and, not be content to just accuse the USA because they haven't proposed any positive ideas .

[Skippy]

Even if (and I believe that the majority of them are guilty, US intelligence can't be that bad...) an individual is found guilty, he wasn't fighting under order from any government. So he can't be a 'prisoner of war', according to the above Geneva Convention definitions. At best, he's an Illegal Detainee. If I blow up US interests in South Africa, sure - the US will be pissed at me, but they must insist on SA capturing and prosecuting me under SA law. They can apply for extradition under International Law, however. If they spirit me away, ignoring my country's sovereignty, I will be classified as an 'Illegal Detainee', and the US will reclassify itself as 'War Criminal'.

Were any of the detainees "spirited away" without their country's authorization? Doubtful Most came from Afghanistan and Iraq whose current legitimate governments are in favor of the detention. How many of the detainees are publicly being referred to as "Illegally detained" by their contry so that their country can avoid the holy hell that would break loose in their own land if it were found that they cooperated with the U.S.? If the Saudi govt. allowed one of its citizens to be captured and detained, there would be a change in the leadership there virtually overnight. We will probably never know the truth.

 

Why does the US refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement, thereby nullifying the effectiveness of it? The US, being the world's single largest polluter, doesn't seem to give a rip that its industrial complex is polluting Canada and Mexico, for instance. And the world stand by idly, watching this, because nobody wants to offend the 'States, thereby losing valuable export deals. This alone, in my opinion, would be seen as a crime a few years from now.

The U.S. refuses to sign Kyoto because WE HAVE BRAINS and we elect to use them. Pollution control is the means to an end, not the real reason for the treaty. Kyoto is designed to bring the U.S. down to the level of other countries, not in the sense of pollution, in the sense of being an economic power and ultimately a military power. You need look no further than the demise of the USSR to see that a country that is an economic failure cannot be a superpower...destroy a country's capacity to produce and destroy its ability to defend itself. IF, repeat IF the signatories of Kyoto really wanted a reduction in pollution there would be no exemptions given... everyone would have to reduce by the same percentage in the same time frame. Your "due process' sililoquy was pretty, but you ruined it with your predisposition to do harm to one or more countries, while letting others skate free.

 

:D This is off topic Boersun :D , but it could not go unchallenged.

[Skippy]

BTW, most all of Al-Qaeda dresses the same, why would their burkas (or whatever they call them) not qualify as their uniform?

Not to sound racially insensitive, but one turbin looks the same as any other to me. If I see a Seikh I do not recognize that they are not a Muslim any more than I can tell the subtle differences in colors or patterns on them which help to identify clans and such.

 

But in the case of the Al Queda who have been seen in photos taken at airports and subways minutes before they took their action, they were dressed no differently than any other business or pleasure traveller there. Many of those captured in Afghanistan were dressed the same as those who were fighting along with our soldiers, the biggest difference was the direction their weapon was aimed.

[Gurdur]

Not only is it unique among all the signatories, it is also apropos for the survivors of 9/11.

Since when is the USA alone in suffering from attacks ? What gives the USA any right to willynilly ignore international treaties ?

[infamous]

Since when is the USA alone in suffering from attacks ? What gives the USA any right to willynilly ignore international treaties ?

Never said we were alone in suffering from attacks. If you watch the news, I believe anyone can see that no nation is completely safe from a terrorist attack today. And the answer to your second question: When our national security is at risk. If you think that we are ready to surrender to the terrorists demands, you better think again. We are not just going to throw our hands up in surrender and allow another 9/11 to happen again.

[Fishteacher73]

While discussion along theses lines are great (It's nice to see how others view Gitmo (the most visable among many US detainment camps strewn about the globe)), it underscores the actual intention of the thread (While taking a slight detour). There are many people that feel it is legal and acceptable for the US to indefinatly intern individuals (wow illiteration with i's...) under the guise of suspicion while proclaiming to be the fountainhead of democracy and freedom. Gitmo et al, are no more than a modern Tower of London for the US. The continued hair splitting of legal definitions to excuse these actions are the fodder for it to continue. It's ok becasue they are black, it's ok because they are indians, it's ok because they are women, it's ok because they are gay, it's ok because they are "suspected terrorists".

 

I reiterate an earlier post, anytime one group is segragated because of ideology, creed, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, sex, race, hair color, polydactylism, etc. and denied the equal treetment of his peers it is wrong. It is abhorant for a gov't to actively deny these rights that it supposedly stands for.

 

It is simple, just ask yourself, what would I think if that were me? Would I be supporting that position? I doubt it. The only diference between freedom fighter and terrorist is perspective. (I bet you all hooped and hollered for Patric Swayze in Red Dawn).

[Biochemist]

...The only diference between freedom fighter and terrorist is perspective. ..

I have to say that I think this is the most egregious statement of moral relativism that I have ever heard. That is is so often repeated does not lessen the gravity of the misrepresentation.

 

This is very simple: Terrorists target non-combattants. They are not "collateral damage". They are not spies. They are targets.

 

Freedom fighters, revolutionaries, guerillas and armies do not target non-combattants. They use various battlefield tactics, but they do not target non-combattants.

 

There is a VERY profound difference here.

[infamous]

 

Freedom fighters, revolutionaries, guerillas and armies do not target non-combattants. They use various battlefield tactics, but they do not target non-combattants.

 

There is a VERY profound difference here.

I totally agree Bio; Whatever one chooses to call themselves, freedom-fighters, revolutionaries, or guerillas, when they practice indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians, they become terrorists . No other word more perfectly discribes their murderous nature than this term.

[Fishteacher73]

Again a fine line, is a tax collector a combatant? Is a politician? Is a compliant policeman? Yes, some truly innocents are targeted in this style of war. To pretend that it will go away or it can be eradicated, is about as futile as trying to revert to "gentlemanly combat" with tea breaks and spectators. I do not condone the targeting of civillians. In many of the extemist's views though are based on the tennent, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. They are fighting an ideological war as well, and those that are not in agreement are enemies and not innocent civillians.

 

Again, this seems to be a bit off track to the initial theme of the thread..

[Boerseun]

Well - I've just got to chip in again. And before I do, I just want to stress once more that I don't condone terrorism in any form, so don't burn me for it! :D

 

If these so-called terrorists have any gripe with the US, or any Western Power, for that matter, there's no way for them to confront the US military on an equal basis.

There's no way for them to dodge a laser-guided missile, or avoid satellite surveilance. His little tent in the middle of the Afghan desert will be blown to bits before he can say "Taliban". They can't confront an Aircraft carrier with all its escourts on equal terms.

 

They are brought up with the view that Christian Westerners are 'infidels', not worthy of consideration as human beings. And I'm not generalizing amongst the Islam here, there's a whole host of Christian fringe groups any time as dangerous as the Islam extremists. Think KKK, etc. That doesn't make all Christians bad. But a lot of gross injustices have been justified using Christianity, so I'd say that extremism from any side is dangerous.

 

Seeing as these extremists view Christians as 'infidels', Western, Christian citizens are expendable in their view, and the only leverage they have over the West, whose military capability can't be challenged. So they have to revert to 'terrorism'.

 

In their view they are Allah's soldiers, and in their warped interpretation of the Q'uran, they're doing the right thing when they blow themselves to bits, taking a couple of civilians with them. The more the merrier.

 

I can in no way condone it, but I can understand it. Being brought up in a warped environment warpes your mind - but to you as an individual, that's the way it should be, seeing as your whole frame of reference is like a funhouse mirror. You will act against the 'Infidel', that's your God-given duty. And the more the infidel insults your religion, way of live, etc., the angrier you'll get. Your buddy blew up a guard post with ten dynamite sticks taped to his guts. That night on TV, you saw some of your leaders paraded around with underwear over their heads. Oh, the injustice! How can they?! So, you resolve yourself to go and blow something remotely Western up, this time with twenty dynamite sticks. Then your women aren't allowed to wear their headdresses anymore, something so core to female self-respect in your culture. HOW COULD THEY?! The insensitive bastards!!! So, then you decide 20 dynamite sticks won't cut it. Let's make it fifty. Why the heck not?

 

And so on.

 

We should approach this whole issue with a heck of a lot more sensitivity. If you kick a dog that bites, you're only going to piss him off more.

 

Or, in the words of my long-dead grampa, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

 

It won't help forever to treat the symptoms of 'terrorism'. We should treat the cause. And once we have done that, objectively, I might add, it might even turn out that our hands aren't exactly as clean as the suds ads on television would like us to believe. But, being objective, and adding a dash of pragmatism as well, it won't stop us from solving the issue.

 

Terrorists can't win. And the flipside of the coin is that any 'war' by organized forces against terrorism, can't win, either. You can't fight an enemy you can't see. But the 'enemy' in this case will succeed in leaps and bounds if we willingly give up our freedoms.

 

Methinks this should qualify as a classical Gordian Knot. The question now is do we rip out the biggest sword we can get and cut the bastard in two, or be a little bit more thoughtful about it and just look at it from a different angle? For all we know there might be a tiny little thread on the bottom of this knot with a large lable printed in fifty different languages saying "Pull Here".

[Skippy]

While discussion along theses lines are great (It's nice to see how others view Gitmo (the most visable among many US detainment camps strewn about the globe)), it underscores the actual intention of the thread (While taking a slight detour). There are many people that feel it is legal and acceptable for the US to indefinatly intern individuals (wow illiteration with i's...) under the guise of suspicion while proclaiming to be the fountainhead of democracy and freedom. Gitmo et al, are no more than a modern Tower of London for the US. The continued hair splitting of legal definitions to excuse these actions are the fodder for it to continue. It's ok becasue they are black, it's ok because they are indians, it's ok because they are women, it's ok because they are gay, it's ok because they are "suspected terrorists".

You and the "Kill 'em all, let God sort them out" crowd see eye to eye. As you say, "The only difference is perspective." Instead of taking a chance that the prisoner you take and later release becomes the next killer, let's adopt a policy of killing everyone in a combat zone.?.!.?? At least the people in Gitmo still have their life AND as others have noted here, some apparently innocents have been released.

[Gurdur]

Never said we were alone in suffering from attacks. If you watch the news, I believe anyone can see that no nation is completely safe from a terrorist attack today. And the answer to your second question: When our national security is at risk. If you think that we are ready to surrender to the terrorists demands, you better think again. We are not just going to throw our hands up in surrender and allow another 9/11 to happen again.

So any nation can ignore all international treaties for whatsoever any reason it likes ?

This seems the ultimate in international moral relativism, no ?

[infamous]

So any nation can ignore all international treaties for whatsoever any reason it likes ?

This seems the ultimate in international moral relativism, no ?

If you want to define the instinct to survive as "the ultimate in international moral relativism" I quess I would have to agree with you.